Recommendations

Did Paul Ever Deliberately Lie in Court?

I generally do not subscribe to the view that Paul lied deliberately about anything let alone in court. Of course, I accept Paul's own admission of a deliberate lie in Romans 3:7 and use of guile (deception) in 2 Cor. 12:16 to advance the gospel. However, beyond Paul making an admission of lying or deceit for such purposes, I am generally skeptical of claims Paul lied.

But Paul says we should trust his words when quoting Jesus in revelation speaking to Paul, meaning Paul is speaking as a prophet (e.g., 2 Cor. 12:7). As a result, Jesus says we must test Paul “by his fruits” to determine whether he is a true or false prophet.(Matt 7:16.)

Thus even though I am skeptical that Paul lied, especially for selfish motives, and thus had “bad fruit,” I keep an open mind to hear the evidence that this is the case. I believe Paul was a dupe about the Damascus appearance of “Jesus,” and that this was sincere. (See link.) This does not prevent me from agreeing with the arguments in Problems with Apostle Paul when it declares the following are Paul's lies - which I am taking from its History of Paul article. I am excerpting a section where the author claims Paul lied before the Sanhedrin -- a court of law. So let's examine the accusation, and then test it below. We read:

Paul said that when the law was still in force, faith had not yet come, Galatians 3:23. However, he contradicts this in Romans 4:3, 22. Which way is it?

Paul defended a lie because it ‘glorifies God’ and he wondered why he was judged a sinner, Romans 3:7. He was caught lying and tried to wriggle out of it with a song and dance. He doesn’t seem to grasp that a lie is a lie, and never does it glorify Yahweh. Why does Paul keep insisting he’s not deceitful and does not lie? Romans 9:1, II Corinthians 11:31, Galatians 1:20, Philippians 1:18, I Thessalonians 2:1-12, I Timothy 2:7. Why are the real apostles not accused of lying as Paul is? Ask yourself this: Would Yahoshua (Jesus) lie ‘for the glory of God’ as Paul did? I think not!

Paul lied before the Sanhedrin, Acts 23:6-7. He said he was ‘called into question for the hope and resurrection of the dead.’ This was strictly a divide and conquer ploy with no basis in reality. The truth of the matter is he was called into question on account of his anti-Torah teachings, found in Acts 21:27-28.

Let's just focus on whether Paul lied before the Sanhedrin as charged.

Did Paul Lie Before the Sanhedrin?

6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.

7 And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided.

Why did this happen? Luke explains the two sects opposed each other over this doctrine:

8 (The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees believe all these things.) (Acts 23:8 NIV).

What can we say then about whether Paul lied in court?

It is clear here that Paul wilfully liedin violation of a divine law. And this was to protect his skin, and not to advance the gospel of Jesus, who Paul never even mentions.

Calvin, the famous early reformer of the 1500s, essentially admitted this in his discussion about Paul's appearance before the Sanhedrin: "For the astuteness, which he used, was closely related to a feint, that was not far removed from lying...."(Mark Douglas Given, Paul's True Rhetoric: Ambiguity, Cunning and Deception (2001) at81, quoting Calvin).

Calvin further commented that: "Paul's stratagem, seems out of keeping with a servant of Christ." Id. Calvin explained why it was a lie: "He [i.e., Paul] says the circumstances of his case turn on the resurrection of the dead. But we knowthe issue was about other matters, that he abrogated the ceremonies, and admitted the gentiles into the covenant of the Gentiles." Id.

I concur, but I would correct Calvin this far: the charges involved Paul admitting a gentile into the Temple who was uncircumcised, to be more precise.

What else indicates Paul was lying in the court? Luke himself makes this clear by giving us the full context.

Luke virtually tells us expressly that Paul is lying as a stratagem, revealing how Paul deliberately made up a different charge than the one that brought Paul there. Luke explicitly identifies Paul's motive in saying what he is saying as a ploy. Luke reveals Paul chose to claim the issue upon which Paul was being tried involved something which Paul knew would divide the court members into two fighting factions. Luke even gives us details about the strategy of Paul. Paul sensed "one part" were Sadducees and one part were Pharisees. So Paul claimed he was a Pharisee on trial over his hope and belief in a doctrine which Pharisees held, namely that there will be a resurrection from the dead. This very issue, Luke says, divided the Pharisees from the Sadducees. The Sadducees denied there was any resurrection of the dead. Thus, in Acts 23:6-7, when Paul says he is on trial about the issue of his belief in the resurrection, Luke explains the Pharisees raised an instant fracas in favor of Paul.

The true charge upon which Paul was "called into question" was stated earlier by Luke in Acts 21:27 (KJV):

28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.

As we discuss in our article Trophimus, these charges led to Paul being arrested on a charge that he brought an uncircumcised Gentile into the Temple area where uncircumcised Gentiles were prohibited to enter. In Luke's account in Acts chs. 21-22, Paul provided an alibi for the time of Trophimus' entry in an uncircumcised state at the Temple -- Paul said he was involved in a ceremonial washing at the time, and thus did not introduce Trophimus into the prohibited area. Hence, it was untrue that Paul was taken before the Sanhedrin to be tried on a charge that Paul believed in the resurrection from the dead.

Thus, beyond doubt, Paul lied in a court of law. It was deliberately done to change the issue, and divide the Court. It was no accident. Luke makes that clear. As Werner's Bible Commentary admits even while apologizing for Paul at every turn: "Moreover, he was fully aware of the opposing views to which the Pharisees and Sadducees adhered. So it appears that he deliberately chose to set the members of the court against one another...." ("Acts 23:1-35," Werner's Bible Commentary.) As Visual Bible Alive simply notes: "In this story, Paul deliberately spoke about his belief in the resurrection so he would cause a divisionbetween the Pharisees and the Sadducees." ("Pharisees and Sadducees," Visual Bible Alive.) Loveday Alexander in 2007 similarly wrote:

"The Sanhedrin hearing is deliberatelyhighjacked by Paul into a theological debateon the resurrection (23.6-8)." (Loveday Alexander, Acts in its Ancient Literary Context (Continuum, 2007) at 200.)

As Hyam Maccoby says, Paul's use of the resurrection issue demonstrated "great presence of mind," but at the same time it involved "a distinct lack of scruple to play on this situation to escape condemnation." (Hyman Maccoby, The Mythmaker (1986) at 165.)

Here's the nub of the problem: this is a courtroom scene. The Sanhedrin is a court for religious crimes. "The ancient Jewish court system was called the Sanhedrin." (Shira Schoenberg, The Sanhedrin.)

The Ten Commandments prohibit bearing false testimony. This means you cannot lie in court. See "False Witness," Wikipedia. (This is not to permit lying outside of court, but by being placed on the Two Tablets, God put the highest injunction against lying when it takes place in court.)

Jesus equally condemned giving false testimony (in court): "According to Jesus, false testimony comes from the sinful desires of the heart and makes people unclean." ("False Witness," Wikipedia, citing Matt 15:18-19.) Also: "According to the New Testament, Jesus explains that obedience to the prohibition against false testimony from the ten commandments is a requirement for eternal life." Id., citing Matt 19:19; Mark 10:19; and Luke 18:20.

Nowhere in the Bible is lying in court excused, even if one believes there is a greater good achieved by lying. Jesus told us to wait for the Holy Spirit and God will give us the words we need when we are charged before judges and courts. Would the Holy Spirit have devised a lie as the solution? I think not.

Thus, indeed Paul deliberately lied before the Sanhedrin - a court of law.

Whether it is justified or not is not the issue. Someone might analogize it to Rahab's lies to protect the spies. However, this is not an excuse to lie in Court. Nor were we ever told Rahab's lie was justified, although we generally surmise it is so to protect the life of the spies.

Regardless, Paul is here proven to be a false witness, and stands in violation of the Ten Commandments, as clearly indicated by Luke.

Paulinist Rebuttals

Tektonics attempts to rebut this view, shared by Scott Nelson. (I wrote the above before reading Scott's article, which is at this link.)

And before Tektonics gets into a nitty-gritty response, it will say there is such a thing as an honourable lie, and say Jesus even committed this:

Our first chapter of consideration [from Scott Nelson] begins by claiming to find "outright bold-faced lies" perpetrated by Paul. One can well imagine the discord that would follow any explanation of the concept of an honorable lie, such as even Jesus committed, but we'll let that pass. ("Scott Nelson's Judaism v. Christianity, a Critique.")

This typifies Pauline defences where they are willing to throw Jesus under the bus if necessary to save Paul. J.P. Holding did the same to try to undercut my arguments that Paul exercised improper cursing-judgments. Holding claimed Jesus used cursing-judgments too (e.g., "Woe Corazin! Woe Capernaum!"), but of course Jesus is assigned by the Father as the judge of the world, so Jesus can so judge where Paul cannot. See link. (Also, I would not say Jesus used 'curses' / anathemas, as did Paul, contrary to what Mr. Holding asserted.)

Moreover, Tektonic's claims Jesus lied (as a means to excuse Paul) at John 7:8-10 where Jesus merely states his intention not to go to a feast but then he goes anyway. However, one cannot be guilty of a lie about a fact when one merely states an intention and then changes that intention. Nor was Jesus under oath. Thus, Tektonics' example is terrible. You also see how desperate they are to throw Jesus under the bus to save Paul if we perceive Paul deliberately lied under oath.

Regardless, if Tektonics could show Jesus lied in the same way that Paul did -- in court, then Jesus too must be rejected. God's law does not cease to exist because we love Jesus. But Jesus never lied in court. Jesus was mostly quiet and once said He was the Son of Man and would return on the clouds of heaven. Hence, Tektonics made a bogus allusion to our Lord sinning -- God forbid! -- so Tektonics could save Paul -- to prejudice us to excuse Paul if we thought we must find a similar excuse for our Jesus if we believed Tektonics that he too lied.

But when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, "Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged!" And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and the assembly was divided. [World English Bible]

The term "I am being judged" means Paul identifies the issue in question is whether Paul believed in the resurrection as the Pharisees maintained. This is important because Tektonics will twist the passage around to eliminate that point.

The fact Paul identifies the issue involved in the trial as his belief in the resurrection is clear in all competing versions. The Parallel Bible of this verse (see link) says "I am on trial because" ... This is also the translation in the NIV, NLV, ESV, NASB, and ISV. Hence, there is no doubt that Paul is saying he is on trial or to be judged on his hope and belief in the doctrine of the resurrection -- which Luke then explains divides the Pharisees from the Sadducees on the court.

Finally, here is how Tektonics answers Nelson's charge that Paul lied to the Sanhedrin court:

While this is correctly seen as "a divide-and-conquer ploy" it is wrongly stated that "there was not one shred of truth" otherwise, for Paul, it is said, was not "being judged on the issue of the resurrection of the dead..." And Paul says no such thing to begin with. Paul says he has come to trial because ofthe hope of the resurrection of the dead, because of his belief in this happening, which is quite true: It is his proclamation of the hope in Jesus that led to him being on trial.

Thus, according to Tektonics, Paul supposedly does not say he is being judged on the issue of the resurrection of the dead which the Pharisees held. (Check what Paul says by reading above -- Paul says he is a Pharisee, and then immediately says he is being judged / tried because of his "hope and belief" in the resurrection.) Oh no! Tektonics says that is wrong, and instead Paul is on trial because of Paul's belief in the resurrection which is then redefined as supposedly Paul's proclamation of Jesus / his "hope in Jesus."

This is incorrect reasoning.

First, the meaning of Paul's words were understood by the audience that the trial was supposedly about whether Paul erred in believing in the resurrection of the dead -- an issue under controversy between Pharisees and Sadducees. Luke lets you know this. So there is no doubt Paul was identifying the issue involved in the trial was his belief as a Pharisee in the doctrine of the resurrection, which Sadducees rejected. Paul never says that he is on trial for his "hope in Jesus," as Tektonics recategorizes Paul's words.

Second, it would still be a lie if Paul had the meaning Tektonics ascribes to Paul, implausible as it is. Paul was not on trial at all over the issue of his belief in Jesus. Rather, it was whether he led Trophimus into the temple in an uncircumcised state. He did or did not do that. Belief in Jesus was never the issue in point. Tektonics is unwittingly helping to prove that regardless of how you try to escape this passage, Paul lied. There is no plausible escape from that fact.

Tektonics goes on to claim there is uncertainty over what Paul was previously charged with. Tektonics claims that the proof of the charge in Acts 21 depends upon the supposedly flimsy evidence of a mob claim. In restating that claim, Tektonics omits that the 'mob' claim included the charge of letting uncircumcised Gentiles into the temple. This does not deserve any lengthy response because from Acts 21 to 26 Paul is involved in numerous court proceedings over the allegation of the violation of the Temple grounds. The so-called mob is Luke's telling us what led to the arrest, and of this there is no doubt. It certainly did not involve Paul's belief in Jesus nor of the resurrection of the dead. And therein rests the proof of the lie.

Conclusion

Paul violated a command which Jesus said one must not violate to have eternal life.

Thus, clearly Paul had a bad fruit within the meaning of Matthew 7:15-20 (KJV) where we read:

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Hence, Jesus gave us the measure by which to determine whether Paul is a true or false prophet -- as Paul proclaimed he spoke the 'Lord's' words on several occasions -- by examining such fruit. If the fruit of Paul is a deliberate false testimony in court after his supposed true conversion eventoutside Damascus in Acts 9, I very much believe this is the kind of fruit Jesus would say justifies dismissing Paul's words as inspired from our minds and Bibles.

Please remember, we are not addressing here the salvation of Paul. Of course, Paul could have repented, but we never hear anything about that from Luke. Hence, we have to think Paul was satisfied within himself that he caused the ruckus, and never thought he needed to undo this lie. If Paul died unrepentant of this sin, we feel sorry for Paul.

The Nail in the Coffin. Four years after writing this article, I found that Paul lies again in court in Acts 26:19-23 about the very same issue, contradicting his own claim in Acts 23! This time Paul is testifying in front of King Agrippa about why he was seized in the first place for wrongdoing at the temple. Instead of telling Agrippa the truth was because he supposedly brought Trophimus into the Temple in an uncircumcised state, Paul said it was because he was preaching a gospel of "works worthy of repentance." WOW! That does not even make sense in light of Paul's epistles. Doesn't Paul preach instead a Gospel of "faith, not works." (Eph 2:8-9.) Paul never seems to be able to speak in a straight manner. Here is Acts 26:19-23:

19 “Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, 20 but declared first to them of Damascus, at Jerusalem, and throughout all the country of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, doing works worthy of repentance. 21 For this reasonthe Jews seized me in the temple, and tried to kill me.

Paul was incessantly trying to deflect attention away from the true nature of the charge: a violation of the temple's sanctity by entry of an uncircumcised Gentile: his friend from Ephesus -- Trophimus. While circumcised Gentiles were allowed into the Court of the Gentiles, one who was uncircumcised was an "abomination." This violation was treated as one of the higest crimes in all of Israel. No wonder Paul did not want to explain the truth. But for us, we know he is under oath before judges. Paul is repeatedly choosing lying and deception. This is sad, but look how successful this strategem of Paul has been: For when has any teacher in your church ever identified clearly to you that Paul is on trial for Trophimus's breach of the temple's sanctity by entering in an uncircumcised state? The lack of focus and attention to the issue mirrors Paul's deliberate efforts twice to change and misdescribe the issue involved.

More Nails in the Coffin. Also, after observing Acts 26:19-23 as another court lie by Paul, I found a third and fourth one.

Paul in Acts 23 is testifying in front of the Sanhedrin Court. The High Priest is present. After cursing the High Priest, Paul in Acts 23:4 acknowledges he was subject to Exodus 22:28 “you shall not...cursea ruler of your people.” Paul had cursed the High Priest by saying “God will smite you,” also calling the High Priest a “urinal wall” (Acts 23:3)("Whited wall" refers to lime used in urinals of that day. See link.) The High Priest had Paul slapped because he thought Paul lied when Paul said he has “lived in all good conscience” (i.e., without sin) before God till this day." (Acts 23:1.)

So had Paul lived without sin up to that "day"? No, and by Paul's own admission:

“I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor.” (1 Tim. 1:13 NASB.)

One of those "violent aggressions" was against people who were never properly tried. This is in Acts 8 at the stoning of Stephen. Another is Paul's violent attack on James the Just, throwing him down from the temple mount, seriously injuring him, even though James never had a proper trial, as the Law mandates. Paul cannot claim ignorance that executions or attempted executions without a proper trial are unlawful.

There is even a second obvious lie by Paul in Acts 26, but one which Luke could not detect. Paul said he was not guilty of violating Exodus 22:28 because he did not know the High Priest was talking. However, the High Priest in a courtroom setting is known (a) by His distinctive dress that he was commanded to wear outside at all times by a command in the Bible (see link) and (b) by his seating position. If Paul is not lying he was a Pharisee, and studied under Gamaliel, how could Paul so-trained not know this was the High Priest?

Alternatively, if you believe Paul is constantly inspired, then Paul knew by the Holy Spirit it was the High Priest, and then lied about it. So either Paul is not always inspired or Paul was inspired at all times, and lied to the High Priest. Either way, the episode discredits Paul as a voice for Christians to listen to.

Hence, there are two lies in Acts 23 -- both under oath because Paul is speaking to the Sanhedrin court.

END

Anonymous Email Comments:

Y Disagrees That Paul Lied

Hi Doug,

I've read the article [about Acts 23].

I don't agree with this. I would not say it's a lie.

Paul was basically meaning to say that: "All your accusions against me are baseless. You don't have any evidence or true testimony to prove I broke the Law or said evil things against Moses, or defiled the Temple. The true reason why you brought me here to be condemned, it's because my faith in Jesus, and because I speak for Him. So the real reason it's because you don't want me to say Jesus is resurrected and alive. It's all about that, "

Even if Paul was wrong and the Sanhedrin really meant to only judge him for his wrongdoings in the Temple, Paul said what he thought was the real reason why he was arrested

Y (12/8/2012)

A's Reply to Y's Comment

Hey Doug,

Long time no talk! I hope all is well with you. I like the new article. Not sure if you are posting comments TO comments, but here is one that I think needs to be said.

I challenge ANY Paulinist to explain the "difficult" sayings of Paul WITHOUT using the phrase " Paul was basically meaning to say that… " (or something similar) as your first commenter did.

That is probably the most annoying thing about discussing Paul issues with a Paulinist. Whenever we get to a difficult topic, the first thing they say is something like, "Well, what Paul MEANT to say was…" to which I respond, "How can you know what Paul meant to say? Do you know more about what he was trying to say than he did? Are you not being presumptuous in inserting words into his writings? What if he wanted to say exactly what he said? Are you not also guilty of 'adding to' what you believe is the word of Yahweh?"

Those questions are never answered.

Blessings brother! A. (Dec. 9, 2012)

My Comment to A's Comment

Thanks for the reply to Y. Yes, Paul's defenders are like evolutionists in that they rely upon just-so stories to fill in gaps / overcome refutations. Just-so stories in both arenas are imagined pathways to overcome problems where pure imagination without foundation is used to place evolution and Paul beyond confuting. They both just imagine any scenario / meaning necessary to preserve the theory despite the overwhelming contrary evidence.

The first comment above is an example of this same kind of fallascious reasoning being applied to Paul's writings. It is pure wishful thinking and speculation. Any re-write necessary is supplied so Paul never appears to lie, or err, or prove embarassing. Paul is thereby put beyond the Berean-like testing of Paul that even Luke shows was proper in the example of the Bereans. Doug (Dec. 9, 2012)

Troubled by Paul

Interesting article. I too have problems with Paul. For example he had his encounter on the Damascus Road, was converted but chose not to spend any time with Jesus' disciples but instead set off for Arabia . Fourteen years later he reappears with disciples of his own and declares his ministry to the Gentiles an assignment that was originally Peter's. There are other examples. Jesus said call no man father, Paul says he is a spiritual father to Timothy. I could go on and on...His In Service

B (12/8/2012)

Jesus Never Lied As Paulinists Claim To Excuse Paul

Roberto sent me some very helpful points to refute Tektonics further on whether Jesus lied, as Tektonics claimed to excuse Paul from the sin of lying in court. Roberto wrote:

Hi Doug:

First of all, Jesus NEVER LIED about going up to the feast. He never said he would NOT GO, what he said was. "I go not up YET unto this feast" (John 7:8). He meant what he said and practiced it too. Ha ha. He went up later, didnt he? So where is the lie???

Second: Look how Jesus acted when being judged:

"Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered... To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the TRUTH" (John 18:37). Could Paul be called a follower of Jesus when he did exaactly THE OPPOSITE of what his (supposed) Master did?

Third: "But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you" (Matthew 10:19-20).

And how did Jesus refer to the Holy Spirit???

"Howbeit when he, the SPIRIT OF TRUTH, is come, he will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13).

Would the SPIRIT OF TRUTH help us TO LIE when judged??? Certainly NOT!!! "the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie" (1John 2:27).

Hope it is of some help.

Greetings and blessings.

Roberto (Dec. 9, 2012)

Ed's Commnent

Hi Doug,

Great article and links! I had read a similar article sometime ago on Scott Nelson's site and agree totally that Paul lied outright to the Sanhedrin in the hopes of escaping judgment. When he was brought before the court and was smote on the face he lashed back at those who hit him instead of turning the other cheek as Yehoshua taught.http://nycbiblestudy.com/recognizing-bad-fruit/reason-3/ Another hint that he never knew the Master and his teachings.

It's also interesting to note that he did not recognize the high priest, considering how he constantly boasts about being this great Pharisee of the law, how could he not know who he was? It appears to me his rank in the Pharisaical order is questionable. Ed (12/10/2012)

Liz' Comment on Why Paulinists Throw Jesus Under the Bus

Hello Doug,

Great article! I don't find it hard to believe that anyone would throw Jesus under the bus ifnecessary to save Paul. I've seen it happen too many times in my life. The reason is quite simple - "Father Paul" is the one that allows his children to run wild and not worry about any laws or regulations - no need to clean your room, do your homework or eat your vegetables.

On the other hand, Jesus keeps reminding his children to obey his Father's law. And guess what? He also reminds them that there will be consequences to pay if the rooms or homework are not done when he returns. Any spoiled child would run to the lawless father and throw the other under the bus. Liz

Further Studies On Other Lies in Court by Paul

Boulanger in 1746 wrote a book entitled A Critical Examination of Paul. We excerpt and draw out many excellent points raised by Boulanger -- relying upon a scan at books.google.com of this very rare book -- at this link. In this work, Boulanger claims that Paul lied again in the Sanhedrin court proceedings -- another proceeding where testimony is taken under oath. In this passagein Acts, Paul claims to not know he disrespected the High Priest, and Boulanger says this evinces much disingenuousness. Also, Paul's retort was not in keeping with Jesus's command to turn the other cheek. Boulanger writes:

He first declared that in all he had done, he had followed strictly the dictates of his conscience. At these words the High Priest gave him a box on the ear, at which Paul being irritated,instead of turning the other cheek, according to the precept of Jesus, abused the High Priest, treated" him as a hypocrite, or whitened wall. But as he perceived that he had given offence by his insolence to a man respected by the Jews, he moderated himself, and alleged that he was ignorant that it was the High Priest whom he had thus addressed in such terms; an ignorance, however, which cannot fail to excite surprise, considering that he was a man, who must have been informed respecting the place where he was, and the quality of those before whom he was speaking. Id. at 23.